senado_tabelas_referencia

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description does not contradict annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint). It adds behavioral details beyond annotations, such as that every response includes the 'tabela' field, and specifies the exact return structure for each enum value. This gives the agent a clear model of the tool's behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single well-structured paragraph that front-loads the purpose. It lists each enum value with its output and usage in a clear, concise manner without any fluff. Every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, enum, output schema exists), the description is fully complete. It covers every possible input, explains the return structure, and provides cross-references to sibling tools. No additional context is needed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although the schema already has 100% coverage for the 'tabela' parameter, the description adds significant meaning by explaining the output structure and purpose of each enum value. For example, it links 'tipos-materia' to finding siglas for sibling tools, which is valuable beyond the schema's description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool consults reference tables of the Senate using the 'tabela' parameter. It lists all possible values and their specific output structures, and even distinguishes itself from siblings by noting that for a nominal list of senators, 'senado_listar_senadores' should be used. The verb 'consulta' and resource 'tabelas de referência' are specific.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly explains when to use this tool: to find correct 'sigla' before using 'senado_buscar_materias'/'senado_search_processos', and for interpreting 'tipoUsoPalavra' in 'senado_discursos_senador'. It also explicitly says to use 'senado_listar_senadores' for a nominal list of senators, providing clear context and alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.